Par for the course.

Rolling Stone is a shit magazine all-around, people. Surely I canot be the only one who isn’t the least bit surprised by their latest antic. They’re a bunch of raging leftists who try to portray themselves as edgy. I would almost have been surprised if they didn’t put a terrorist on the cover, let alone attempt to absolve the kid of any personal responsibility for his actions.

It’s as if, with apologies to Jonah Goldberg, “suddenly, all of these people and groups are stunned to discover that Rolling Stone is…Rolling Stone.”


One Response to “Par for the course.”

  1. Sabra Morse Onstott Says:

    Would it really be too much to think people should, I don’t know, read the fucking article in question before becoming outraged? Because, quite frankly, getting your panties in a twist without bothering to learn the facts is exactly the idiocy we’ve been bitching about since Saturday night, albeit on a different subject. It’s just as shameful coming from the right (although, to be fair, the pants-wetting is really bipartisan on this subject).

    “How did we not notice this seemingly-normal person was homicidal?” is so common a narrative thread in news that it’s become a cliche. (“It’s always the one you least expect!” “He was such a nice guy–you know, when he wasn’t dismembering prostitutes.”) The photo on the cover makes perfect sense in the context of the article. By the way, actual quote: “I knew this kid, and he was a good kid,” Payack says, sadly. “And, apparently, he’s also a monster.” If that’s making excuses for him, I’ll eat your pillow.

    Read more:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: